[nfitz]

They can't build the stations while the section of tunnels the station is on is being bored.

Which doesn't preclude construction of any of the stations from Oakwood to Mount Dennis or Leslie to Kennedy. Though the key factor is that with the contract only just being awarded, first they have to do the design.

Probably in the Fall?

I'd think it would take a bit longer. The contractor did announce they'd achieved financial close in June - but oddly there's been no official announcement I've seen from Infrastructure Ontario - what's that about?

 

[TheTigerMaster]

This might be a stupid question, because I have a feeling I'm missing something basic.

The Eglinton-Crostown backgrounder says there will be 5,400 passengers per hour in the peak direction by 2031. I'm looking at the Eglinton Crosstown Benefit Case, which does say that AM peak westbound ridership is about 5,400 pphpd, immediately east of Yonge. However, the report does say that AM peak eastbound ridership is about 6,500 pphpd, with peak point located just west of Eglinton West (Allen) station. See page 17.

Why is it that 5,400 pphpd is cite as peak point/direction usage for ECLRT, when the report here says that it's about 6,500 pphpd?

Edit: fixed link

 

[CDL.TO]

I don't see what you're referring to on page 17 of the linked report.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Sorry, I linked to the wrong report. Here's the right one:

http://www.metrolinx.com/en/regiona...itscases/Benefits_Case-Eglinton_Crosstown.pdf

Page 17 is the same graph that I included above, but you can see it in context at the link.

 

[CDL.TO]

Thanks for clarifying. I was wondering if it was some alternative scenario due to the lower capacity (and, worth noting, ridership exceeding capacity) on the SRT segment, but this confirms that this is the Transit City concept.

The point of peak demand being eastbound departing Oakwood is what I was familiar with, so no surprise there IMO.

The answer seems to be that 5,400 is the number that was developed by the TTC as part of the original Transit City planning (Perhaps in the ECLRT EA? I can't be bothered to look it up.). The number has been consistently reused since (just Google it, people reference it all the time (including you ).

So even though later modelling was done which provided different numbers, including the 6,500 referenced above, communications materials have stuck with the 5,400 number for consistency.

Since the line is considered to be justified at 5,400, they have no reason to promote the higher numbers. That way, when the line opens and the 5,400 estimate is exceeded well before 2031 they can point to how successful the line is. Under promise and over deliver.

 

[BurlOak]

I just went to the science centre and was reminded how dumb the Eglinton decisions were.

• 2 lanes will be removed under the DVP causing traffic chaos at the DVP ramps and probably spilling back to Don't Mills.
• 2 lanes will be removed under the CPR causing traffic backup at Leslie.
• the station and bus terminal at the NE is much more disruptive than at the SW on the Science Centre parking lot.
• The Chosen route makes construction disruption (both at Scenic west of Leslie and future at Don't Mills) much worse than required.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Thanks for clarifying. I was wondering if it was some alternative scenario due to the lower capacity (and, worth noting, ridership exceeding capacity) on the SRT segment, but this confirms that this is the Transit City concept.

The point of peak demand being eastbound departing Oakwood is what I was familiar with, so no surprise there IMO.

The answer seems to be that 5,400 is the number that was developed by the TTC as part of the original Transit City planning (Perhaps in the ECLRT EA? I can't be bothered to look it up.). The number has been consistently reused since (just Google it, people reference it all the time (including you ).

So even though later modelling was done which provided different numbers, including the 6,500 referenced above, communications materials have stuck with the 5,400 number for consistency.

Since the line is considered to be justified at 5,400, they have no reason to promote the higher numbers. That way, when the line opens and the 5,400 estimate is exceeded well before 2031 they can point to how successful the line is. Under promise and over deliver.

The TTC's 2009 Travel Demand Forecasting report estimated 5,400 PPHPD, with peak point/direction being eastbound, immediately west of Allen Station. This 5,400 figure is for the fully completed Transit City ECLRT from Pearson to Kennedy.

Metrolinx's 2013 Eglinton Crosstown Benefits Case estimates about 6,500 pphpd, with peak point/direction being eastbound, just west of Allen station. This is for the truncated ECLRT, spanning Mt. Dennis to Kennedy.

The westbound peak point estimations are similarly inconsistent.

So these studies are showing that the shorter ECLRT will somehow have higher peak point ridership than the longer ECLRT. This is a discrepancy that can't be reconciled, as far as I can see. I'm not sure which of these estimates, if any, we can believe.

 

[CDL.TO]

So these studies are showing that the shorter ECLRT will somehow have higher peak point ridership than the longer ECLRT. This is a discrepancy that can't be reconciled, as far as I can see. I'm not sure which of these estimates, if any, we can believe.

You shouldn't really "believe" any of them. All models are wrong, but some are useful. There's assumptions of varying reliability behind every prediction.

For example, the inclusion or exclusion of the Jane LRT in each model will make a big difference. Or what the assumptions are regarding fare integration with GO at Mount Dennis station.

If you want a rule of thumb, IMO the odds are that the newer a figure is the more accurate it is likely to be. Modelling work continues to improve in the GTHA.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

I look forward to the results of the SmartTrack study, which will remodel the ECLRT and various other lines.

 

[BurlOak]

So these studies are showing that the shorter ECLRT will somehow have higher peak point ridership than the longer ECLRT. This is a discrepancy that can't be reconciled, as far as I can see. I'm not sure which of these estimates, if any, we can believe.

I think the 2009 study had the ECLRT on street from Don Mills to Kennedy and with a forced transfer at Kennedy. That was such a horrible plan that a much shorter route (STC to Mt. Dennis) had 20% higher ridership than the longer Malvern to Pearson Transit City plan. It actually is consistant data that clearly highlights the stupidity of what we are doing.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

I think the 2009 study had the ECLRT on street from Don Mills to Kennedy and with a forced transfer at Kennedy. That was such a horrible plan that a much shorter route (STC to Mt. Dennis) had 20% higher ridership than the longer Malvern to Pearson Transit City plan. It actually is consistant data that clearly highlights the stupidity of what we are doing.

The eastern portion is irrelevant. Both ELCRT plans in the study were identical, other than the Mt. Dennis to Pearson extension.

 

[sixrings]

I think the 2009 study had the ECLRT on street from Don Mills to Kennedy and with a forced transfer at Kennedy. That was such a horrible plan that a much shorter route (STC to Mt. Dennis) had 20% higher ridership than the longer Malvern to Pearson Transit City plan. It actually is consistant data that clearly highlights the stupidity of what we are doing.

Guess what, there will still be a forced transfer at Kennedy for Eglinton riders.

 

[howl]

I just went to the science centre and was reminded how dumb the Eglinton decisions were.

• 2 lanes will be removed under the DVP causing traffic chaos at the DVP ramps and probably spilling back to Don't Mills.
• 2 lanes will be removed under the CPR causing traffic backup at Leslie.
• the station and bus terminal at the NE is much more disruptive than at the SW on the Science Centre parking lot.
• The Chosen route makes construction disruption (both at Scenic west of Leslie and future at Don't Mills) much worse than required.

The lanes that will be removed are the diamond lanes that are currently used primarily by buses during rush hour. The LRT will move many more people than the diamond lane currently does so if you're looking at it in terms of moving people efficiently rather than moving cars efficiently then it is a big win.

I'm not sure why you think the NE corner is more disruptive than the SW corner. However, there will be a station entrance on the Science Centre land. The bus terminal is on the NE corner primarily because the City already owns that land and the terminal is a TTC facility so its free land for them. Notwithstanding Metrolinx is a Provincial agency, if they took additional land from the Science Centre for a bus terminal they would have to pay market prices for it.

Even with the bus terminal on the NE there will be additional land available for a mixed-use development fronting Eglinton.

Finally, construction disruptions, while a consideration, are way down on the list of things to designers need to design around. It's much more important to get a good design that will function efficiently for the next 100 years than to make a worse design just so it's less disruptive during construction.

 

[barit]

Soil testing has started on the site of the future Laird Station. The little plaza that contains a Mac's Milk, Pizza Nova, Second Cup, Mister Sub and Great Canadian Bagel is closing mid-October and will be demolished. I heard this yesterday from the server at Second Cup. He's going back to school. Good for him.

 

[BurlOak]

The eastern portion is irrelevant. Both ELCRT plans in the study were identical, other than the Mt. Dennis to Pearson extension.

Oops. I had a brain cramp. I think it was over 100% increase in ridership with the continuous plan.

What the two numbers tell us is that ridership will be about 5950, with a standard deviation of 780. If I remember my stats, that and a 33% chance that ridership will exceed 6730.